Philosophy: a debate.

An interesting debate about the influence of philosophies in FM 14 in WWFans Twelve step guide, led me to put together this thread. Its purpose is verys simple: trying to get an understanding of the settings each style brings with it, its advantages and its weaknesses. Since we no longer have direct visual feedback about what each style actualy does (apart from watching a lot of games), I'm using the FM 13 tactics screen. This should give us a base of understanding the different philosophies and how they influence the ME.

It is obvious to me (feel free to post your thoughts on this though) that there are two major "sliders" being influenced by the philosophy: Mentality and creative freedom. This seems logical to me, because of the descriptions the tactics creator gives us. The more fluid styles should let your players contribute to more than one phase of play (more evenly spread metnality and creative freedom), were rigid would ask players to focus more on their role in the team (less evenly spread M and CF).

For the purpose of this thread, I'm using this formation:

free photo hosting

Because of the differences in the mentality of both backs, central midfielders and wingers, we have more data to compare between them.

Very rigid

Mentality

take a screenshot

You can see the defenders, the central (defensive) midfielder and the Goalkeeper given the same mentality, both wide players and the deep lying forward only slightly more attacking, the central midfielder with an attack role, even a bit more advanced, with the advanced forward given a real attacking role.

Creative freedom

20mb image hosting

The creative freedom becoms split in 3 categories: defensive roles (no creative freedom, the support roles (litttle creative freedom) and the attack roles (some creative freedom)

Conclusion

Very Rigid:

While mentality is primarly based on position, it does allow split duties but it's impact is reasonably small. Creative freedom is split into three roles, with the attackers getting much more creative freedom than the defenders.

I also changed the leftback to wingback attack and the right winger to winger, attack to see if there was any difference, this was the result:

jpg images

As you can see, the mentality is exactly the same as it was before..

Rigid

Mentality

image hosting

The mentality structure is oviously divided in four: the central defence and goalkeeper, the Backs and the (defensive) midfielder, the wingers and (attacking) central midfielder. The differences in mentality are more pronounced then in the very rigid philosophy.

Creative Freedom

screenshot on pc

It's almost the same as in very rigid, but the players do get more creative freedom overall.

Conclusion

Rigid:

The mentality structure is basond on position and duty, allowing for a split duty partnerschip but only in the central areas. Creative freedom is split into three roles, with the attackers getting much more creative freedom than the defenders, however players do get more creative freedom than in a very rigid style.

I did the same extra test like in very rigid, with absolutely no difference.

Balanced

Mentality

image upload

As you can see, the team is divided into four groups bases on their duty. The only difference is the deep lying forward getting the mentality of a defensive (not support role) with the advanced forward getting an ultra-attacking mentality.

Creative Freedom

how to screenshot on windows 7

The creative freedom is split neatly into the three duties.

Conclusion

Balanced:

The role is more important than position for both the creative freedom and the mentality of the team. The players get more creative freedom overall than in the more rigid formations.

Fluid

Mentality

free screen capture

Bar the attack, the team is divided into defenders and attackers based on their position! The strikers roles are split, as are the central midfield roles.

Creative Freedom

how to take a screen shot

The creative freedom is split with central defenders, goalkeeper and (defensive) central midfielders getting less CF, the transition players some more and striker, backs and wingers getting a lot of creative freedom.

Conclusion

Fluid:

PLayers get more creative freedom overall, with defenders getting least of it and 'outside' players getting most. The mentality structure is split into defence and attack, giving the chance for split mentalities in the centre of the field.

Very Fluid

Mentality

free pic

Barring a slight split in mentality for the striekrs, the whole team gets the same mentality.

Creative Freedom

screen shot windows 7

The structure is the same as in the Fluid version of the tactic but it does give more CF overall.

Conclusion

Very Fluid:

The whole team gets more or less the same mentality, while giving attackers and 'outside players' more CF than defenders.

Why this thread

I do realise most experienced FM players perfectly understand the difference between the different structure, I thought it could be of aid for those who have little expereince, or those who used to stick to their philosophy in previous iterations. I hope to start a debate about the differences between FM 13 and FM 14 as well as the actual influence the philosophy could have on different formations and strategies.

Steve Odom

Ah, see, this reminds me of the only thing I'll miss about the sliders: creating my own kind of hybrid team mentality. I used to organise by position groups but broadly by duty as well, so defenders would typically be three notches lower than midfielders, midfielders three notches lower than strikers. But then, supporting players would go up one notch, and attacking players (or more attacking players) in those groups would go up two notches. So sort of like a hybrid of rigid - in that there are specific groups of players with specific duties - but also more like fluid, in that the spread is greater and the specific mentalities are actually based on the role/duty inside the system.

I can't quite replicate the dynamism of that yet in FM14 without compromising too much elsewhere (IE more creative freedom, or having to use fluid when I really want balanced, etc).

I can't quite replicate the dynamism of that yet in FM14 without compromising too much elsewhere (IE more creative freedom, or having to use fluid when I really want balanced, etc).

Why would you want to stick to a certain pholosophy wen iet doesn't replicate what you want to achieve ingame?

Whoops sorry, I just realized you have to look at the little dark sliders (kind of hard to see) and not the numbers to make sense of this.

None of the philosophies replicate precisely what I want to achieve in-game (in terms of mentality). I have to attain it through tweaking of individual instructions blended with team instructions instead.

Auqakuh. I'm affraid you'll have to make do with what your given.

Personally, I consider this a major step forward. Not because of realism, but because of the stability it potentially has to offer to the ME. I think the major difficulty for SI to iron out some of the bugs in previous FM's was exactly the fact that they gave too much variables to play with. Now they've limited those options, it should be easier to create a more stable and realistic ME.

Can I ask you what you are currently using as a philosophy and why?

Here are some illustrations I did a while ago to visualize mentality function of position (VR, R, F, VF) or duty (B). It's in french but "mentalité" stands for mentality and "Rigide" for Rigid, "Equilibré" for Balance and "Fluide" for Fluid and "En fonction de la tâche" means function of duty.

I guess it is still relevant.

In 2 strikers formations, Support duty is -2 from base mentality and Attack duty is +2 from base mentality. So, in a very fluid set-up you have Support on X-2 and attack on X+2. In balance, you have a +7 difference, X+8 (X+6+2) for attack duty and X+1 (X+3-2) for support duty, this is a very big difference.

Hope it helps.

You know I think this is an excellent post because when building tactics this is something where many people (myself included) have failed to get it right .. and I know myself from experimenting, watching matches, etc that between mentality and fluidity , this is why many people see odd things happen during their matches.

In order to get your player roles and duties to respond they need to be under the correct mentality/fluidity umbrella .. and when you click from balanced to counter or from rigid to fluid ..the tactic changes and your player roles/duties then would need to change as well ....its something I do not think "the greater population" here completely understands and then "expects" different things from the game ..

I've been thinking a lot about team philosophies lately and I'd be interested to know what sort of players you'd all get for the different philosophies. I'm planning on building a team that plays with a very fluid philosophy, and so I will need to know what it takes to play that way. I'm guessing (as the players get rather high creative freedom) that they all would need good decision making, teamwork and work rate. Maybe anticipation too, as that reflects their ability to read the game, right?

I believe you should build your team like you see fit, then look at the philosophy/strategy to build your tactic. The more fluid styles could be more suited for well rounded players. I posted this thread mainly so new managers would be more aware of what the philosophies do in the ME. One should also be aware of the interaction between strategy and philosophy, a defensive and very fluid concept might tone down the CF enough to be actually less creative than a rigid and attacking formation

The only thing I Would really consider when building a team around a certain philosophy might be the distribution of the CF, not their actual value.

Since I'm in no way a tactical mastermind, you should consider this an opinion though.

The way I see it, you know we have a problem when in order to explain tactics in FM14 one has to use the system from FM13......

Auqakuh. I'm affraid you'll have to make do with what your given.

Personally, I consider this a major step forward. Not because of realism, but because of the stability it potentially has to offer to the ME. I think the major difficulty for SI to iron out some of the bugs in previous FM's was exactly the fact that they gave too much variables to play with. Now they've limited those options, it should be easier to create a more stable and realistic ME.

Can I ask you what you are currently using as a philosophy and why?

Depends on the system. I use three different systems - one pressing possession-based 4-3-3, one all-out-war high-pressing high-energy 1-4-1-4 (sort of similar to... nothing, anywhere, really, it's a bit mad), and a 4-1-3-2 (or 3-2-3-2, depending how you look at it) that plays kind of like Mourinho's Madrid, but with no wingers/inside forwards and very attacking wingbacks, with a halfback for cover. The former is set as balanced, the latter two are fluid.

The former is balanced because it requires strong organisation and sticking to the match plan, but with a fair amount of creativity still and movement between the lines.

The second is fluid because... it can't be anything else. Balanced would be too rigid, and very fluid would make the tactic devolve into chaos. Beautiful chaos, I suspect, since I have a very creative, technical team... but still chaos. We'd probably either win 4-0 or lose 5-4, but I'm sure it'd be dramatic.

The latter is fluid, against my better judgment and against what the number of specialist roles would suggest, but it didn't work with balanced, so I set it to fluid - the creative aspect was the thing again; balanced was a little too stale, but allowing more creative freedom with the team instruction would have influenced things I didn't want to alter.

The way I see it, you know we have a problem when in order to explain tactics in FM14 one has to use the system from FM13......

The real problem is not the evolution of the game but the people failing to adapt to their environment. Much like the Dodo bird... when all the other birds learned how to flap their wings to fly above the ground... the dodo's were stuck on the ground trying to figure out how to lower the ground.

I don't see anyone flapping their wings with FM14 though.

I do not understand why more comprehensive descriptions are not given with them. Such as telling is if it will make the strikers drop deeper, or make the fullbacks push on.

A few paragraphs of exactly what that mode will try and do.

Rather then a generic "Players will increasingly look to be involved in the play"

Is it possible to create a high-pressing, defensive tactic? There have been numerous threads started which attempt to replicate a Dortmund/Southampton style of play, and it seems every tactic selects an attacking philosophy in order to take advantage of players positioning themselves higher up the pitch. But would it be possible to create a similar style of play, in which players "think" defense first, yet with a combination of team instructions position themselves in such a way as to limit space in the oppositions defensive third, by using a defensive philosophy? Would it be counter intuitive?

The issue with defensive or counter philosophies in this case is that players tend sit deeper rather than push up, but in my minds eye, I like the idea of my players "thinking" defensively. That is, having a defensive "mentality."

I know this topic has been exhausted and discussed to great lengths already, but was just curious if anyone has tried anything different.

Edit - I'm thinking of Strategy, not philosophy :o

A few things…

The perception maybe rigid is a defence minded philosophy and fluid is more attacking, when they are I would argue neither but more universal. The sliders when it use to display ultra-defensive to ultra attacking it seemed to me to mean the spectrum of starting positions hence the success in the coherency of the "+2" slider rule and I think thats what some people maybe missing is the thinking about starting positions at their relation to mentality.

Best comparison IRL, would be Real currently v Barca under Pep in his first year.

If you where playing in the current Real style, the front three almost neglect their defensive duties, the midfield three win and distribute the ball quickly and defenders defend with full back support. To me this should also effect your passing to a more direct style and have your midfielders as excellent passers, the reasoning being there would be a bigger gap between your strikers and midfield. Also, there would be a choice to make in terms of the setting of individual player duties in the forward positions (attacking or support) the temptation would be with Ronaldo, Bale and Benzema that you'd want all three to be set to attacking logically thinking the way Real play but in FM i would suggest playing a 2:1 ratio. I'd want Bale and Ronaldo supporting or Benzema on his own supporting. The thinking behind the two supporting an attack minded Benzema would be they would receive the ball deeper making passing easier and better team coherency in theory and the thinking behind Benzema supporting is Bale and Ronaldo attack whilst Benzema offers a supposed easier ball.

Barca under Pep, was everyone contributed to every phase (winning the ball back in five seconds) also in an attacking sense in an attacking move the player closest to the opposition was sometimes the full backs. I would say the advantage to this philosophy is to set wingers or one central midfielder to be given attacking duties as someone will need to go beyond at least the deep lying/creative forward in an attacking scenario.

In fluid philosophy I seemed to do better in a Celtic game in Europe with a fluid philosophy than a rigid one. Playing with a poor team against bigger team, most of the team needed to defend so in a 442 formation in a fluid v rigid philosophy (talking about "phases" ) reading the games explanation I realised I wasn't getting thee defensive shift I wanted from one of my forwards as he was single minded on attacking changing it to fluid he was closer to do the man marking job I wanted on sitting midfielders and deep lying playmakers. Also, in rigid or stricter, defenders only really defend my thinking would be they'd be less likely to make a telling contribution with low mentality if the chance arrived in the default settings of rigid in an attacking sense, like if your right back ended up on the wing in rigid he'd more likely play conservatively than putting in a cross.

Just from my experience mainly from previous games all this.

The real problem is not the evolution of the game but the people failing to adapt to their environment. Much like the Dodo bird... when all the other birds learned how to flap their wings to fly above the ground... the dodo's were stuck on the ground trying to figure out how to lower the ground.

So, how would you explain (in a clear and easy-to-understand way) philosophies in FM14 without using mentality and creative freedom for all the Dodo's out there. Please keep the thread constructive as opposed to condecending.

The main difference between the dodo and us is the fact we can use our intelligence in order to adapt. The fact we're discussing this proves that.

Anyway, I think there are still some misconceptions; the fluidity is all about shape and creative freedom, nothing more, nothing less. While it does impact your play-style it isn't as simple as the tactics creator would make you believe. I believe it is important to have a shape in mind when creating a tactic and to choose formation, roles and fluidity accordingly. The main things I look at are the impact on shape fluidity has and the roles that get more creativity. This goes beyond the generic description the game provides, in fact, I often ignore that completely.

So, how would you explain (in a clear and easy-to-understand way) philosophies in FM14 without using mentality and creative freedom for all the Dodo's out there. Please keep the thread constructive as opposed to condecending.

Personally, I stick the the Twelve Step Guide in this respect, there is no simpler reference point to this area.

It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is an option.

Philosophies/Styles: The philosophies/styles are mentality and creative freedom structures. They range from being very structured with low creative freedom, to being very unstructured with lots of creative freedom. A useful interpretation would be as follows:

Very Rigid: Each player is given a specific job and is supposed to stick to it (usually 5+ different jobs across a team)

Rigid: Players are assigned a responsibility that contributes to a specific element of play (Defence, defence & transition, transition & attack, attack)

Balanced: Players focus on their duty (Defend, Support, Attack)

Fluid: Players are given instructions to focus on defence or attack

Very Fluid: Players contribute to all aspects of play

As you can see, each step reduces the level of specialisation. At Very Rigid, you have five plus different jobs, Rigid four responsibilities, Balanced three duties, Fluid two focuses, Very Fluid one method. In Very Rigid philosophies, you expect players to stick to their job description, so can assign multiple specialist roles. In Very Fluid philosophies, you expect everybody to do a bit of everything, which means specialist roles are redundant.

I consider the following to be specialist roles:

Target Man

Poacher

False 9

Flank Target Man

Trequartista

Enganche

Advanced Playmaker

Deep Lying Playmaker

Regista

Ball Winning Midfielder

Anchor Man

Libero

These four roles can fit in either camp, depending on your interpretation.

Complete Forward

Defensive Forward

Shadow Striker

Defensive Winger

Box to Box Midfielder

Complete Wing Back

Ball Playing Defender

I consider the following to be generic roles:

Advanced Forward

Deep Lying Forward

Attacking Midfielder

Inside Forward

Winger

Central Midfielder

Wide Midfielder

Defensive Midfielder

Half Back

Wing Back

Full Back

Limited Full Back

Central Defender

Limited Defender

Sweeper

I don't include keepers, although you might want to regard a sweeper keeper as specialist.

I generally suggest the following as a good rule of thumb (consider the either/or roles as 0.5):

Very Rigid: 4-5 specialist roles

Rigid: 3-4 specialist roles

Standard: 2-3 specialist roles

Fluid: 1-2 specialist roles

Very Fluid: 0-1 specialist roles

Please note that these are my interpretations and not hard, fast rules. If you disagree and/or want to be more creative, fire away.

But this explanation causes confusion, that's what made me start this thread. Because it doesn't explain any of the inner working of the ME. Don't get me wrong here. I am convinced wwfans thread is an excellent introduction for those new to the game, it's just a start though.

By the way. I'm not convinced about the whole 'specialist' thing. In the ME there's no distinction between generic/specialist. There 's also the fact the whole debate keeps going back to what we believe to be true about the mentality each philosophy brings with it, not wat the actual creator tells us.

But this explenation causes confusion, thats what made me start this thread. Because it doesn't explain any a

of rhe inner working of the ME. Don't get me wrong here. I am convinced wwfans thread is an excellent introduction for those new to the game, it's kust a start though.

By the way. I'm not convinced about the whole 'specialist' thing. In the ME there's no destinction between generic/specialist. There 's alse the fact the whole debate keeps going back to what we believe to be true about the mentality each phylosophy brings with it, not wat the actual creator tells us.

It's not about the ME recognising a distinction between generic/specialist though, It's that the more fluid you go the less a specialist role is specialist because you've made everyone else have more freedom to express their game. Meaning you've diluted the specialist role. In a rigid set up the specialist role will seem more apparent due to those players being the more creative outlets. In a fluid system you are allowing everyone to be more creative.

I know, thats the point I made in wwfans thread to. They will become less destinctive, wether yuou have one or five 'specialists'. So putting a number of specialists on each fluidity is pointless to me. Especially because with the right setup, you can mimic another fluidity with only small differences.

It's not about the ME recognising a distinction between generic/specialist though, It's that the more fluid you go the less a specialist role is specialist because you've made everyone else have more freedom to express their game. Meaning you've diluted the specialist role. In a rigid set up the specialist role will seem more apparent due to those players being the more creative outlets. In a fluid system you are allowing everyone to be more creative.

Exactly, I think the Twelve Step Guide is extraordinarily transparent in this area.

I know, thats the point I made in wwfans thread to. They will become less destinctive, wether yuou have one or five 'specialists'. So putting a number of specialists on each fluidity is pointless to me. Especially because with the right setup, you can mimic another fluidity with only small differences.

It's not pointless if you are using the specialist roles to dictate which players should be the creative outlets or do a specific job though. The point about the list is if you are using a certain amount of specialist roles then you clearly want those players to do a specific job or you'd choose a more suitable role for them. I don't believe anyone using 5 specialist in a team is doing so due to it being the best role for the set up, I don't believe that for one second, hence why wwfan is advising you to go rigid etc.

Plus like he says these are just a rough guideline and not hard set rules. You can stray out side of them and I often do but there are a lot of users out there who post about tactics and want certain players to do certain things but then get frustrated when everyone is doing it and not the player they choose, due to the philosophy they've chosen. The 12 step guide is a very useful yet basic idea to get people to think about the game more logically and get them thinking differently to what they are used to.

Cleon, that is all entirely true. What I mean by my previous remark is that fluidity doesn't need to restrict your number of 'specialists'. In fact one may well use quite a lot of them in fluid tactics or very few in rigid ones with very good reason. like you, I often deviate from this rule because I have a picture in my mind what it actually does behind the scenes. I believe there is enough reason to point this out because of that. This does not mean I think wwfans thread is useless, absolutely not. The problem to me lies in the fact it can become a 'mantra' to a lot of players if it is not made clear why he said it where no 'hard and fast rules'. In fact,it appears in numerous threads as a fast rule, which was not wwfans intention surely.

I think I understand the effects of philosophies vs roles/duties fairly well, however I find it difficult to know how big effect it will actually have on my players when all is said and done.

I mean, my intuition is this: if I employ a player as a W/A in a very fluid tactic, I'd expect him to track back and prevent overloads down his flank, but in a very rigid tactic I'd expect him to maybe put on some initial pressure, but then slack off a little. I don't know if this is accurate or not, but that's my understanding. However, what if the player I'm actually playing there has a very high work ethic and is defensively strong. Will he defend deep even in a very rigid tactic? That's where I get a little confused.

Cleon, that is all entirely true. What I mean by my previous remark is that fluidity doesn't need to restrict your number of 'specialists'. In fact one may well use quite a lot of them in fluid tactics ore very few in rigid ones with very good reason. like you, I often deviate from this rule because I have a picture in my mind what it actually does behind the scenes. I believe there is enough reason to point this oit because oof that. This does not mean I think wwfans thread is useless, absolutely not. The problem to me lies in tthe fact it can become a 'mantra' to a lot of players if it is not made clear why he said it where no 'hard and fast rules'. In fact,it apears in numerous threads as a fast rule, wich was not wwfans intention surely.

Why would someone choose a lot of them in a fluid system though? There are better suited roles to choose from if you're not wanting a specific thing from a player from those listed as specialist. No offence but if someone is using lots of roles that are expected to play a certain way in a fluid system then I truly believe they don't understand what they are trying to create and the way tactics work in general.

some roles give players more CF, reducing it for others. This gives you the possibility to channel more CF in the team overall via style and team instructions, giving most to those players who need it in your formation. That's why I would do it. I prefer balanced, but see good reasons to do so in fluid styles.

@Fabian Jonssen

When looking at the date in the op, the mentality difference is relatively small. I don't think the effect would be that pronounced..

some roles give players more CF, reducing it for others. This gives you the posibility to channel more CF in the team overall via style and team instructions, giving most to those players who need it in your formation. Thats why I would do it. I prefer balanced, but see good reasons todo so in fluid styles.

But your using fluid so want everyone to be more creative anyway, that's the whole point. If you then choose other roles to give players less CF etc then you didn't want a fluid system to begin and choose the wrong philosophy to use as the base.

In fact what you describe in the bit I bolded is a bit confusing. On one hand you are saying you want everyone to be responsible for a bit of everything so choose fluid. Yet on the other hand you still want certain individuals to be specialists by trying to give them even more creativity. But because everyone around them will be more expressive it still won't work how you want. You'd be better and much suited going rigid allowing the specialists to be specialist which is essential what you are trying to create from a fluid system.

If you look at the CF i of a very fluid philosophy in the op, you see a big difference in Cf for all players.The mentality may be the same, the CfF certainly is not. This leads me to believe there areenough reasons to alter it to your own lijking.

If you look at the CF i of a very fluid philosophy in the op, you see a big difference in Cf for all players.The mentality may be the same, the CfF certainly is not. This leads me to believe there areenough reasons to alter it to your own lijking.

But in the above post you said you still wanted some players to be the creativeness in the side which negates the need for everyone being creative surely? Regardless of how much it changes and for what role you either want specialists to dictate stuff or you don't. You seem to want everyone to be able to express themselves yet some players to still have a more prominent identity.

I really think you are over complicating things when there is no real need. Philosophy isn't complicated in layman's terms and does exactly what it says. It's when you go outside the invisible boundaries and try mixing different ones that users tend to get confused.

Everything in your replies I've seen in this thread so far show me no real reason why you wouldn't choose very rigid/rigid/balance over Fluid/very fluid for the things you say you wanted to choose.(I know you said you use balance but for the discussions sake)

I can totally understand why people would be confused with the lack of documentation that comes with the game though and at first its not something that is easy to pick up unless you are involved with the beta or read every single post from those who create the game, which just isn't logical.

I do feel you are over complicating things for yourself though. I'm not meaning to be an arse here either so sorry if something gets lost in translation

The twelve step guide is excellent but focuses most on how the creative freedom is distributed around the team. The philosophies comes with different mentality structres which one must take into consideration. A very fluid philosophie will give you a very compact team, good for short passing. A Fluid philosophie however will give you a split team, good for countering with direct passing from defence to attack and so on. Would be swell if someone would make a proper guide on the mentality structures of the different philosophies (pro's and con's, what passing would suit them etc)

Cleon,

I do realize I'm complicating things. That is hower not my fault but SI's. : D

The one thing that struck me when taking the screenshots for this opening post was the fact the creative freedom in very fluid tactical setups isn't as fluid as expected. I see no reason why the manager wouldn't be allowed to deviate from the CF setup the tactics creator gives us.

michelco,

You can always post your remarks about that, it would be great to deepen the discussion.

Are you suggesting that creative freedom should be the same for all players? Or that CF average level should not be related to mentality structure? Because CF has always been in the TC era related to 4 things

- Duty (Defend 10, support 14 and attack 18 for example) = + or -4 from average philosophy CF

- Role, for example AP-A or CF-A is CF+3 from a CM-A or AF-A and a BWM-D is CF-3 from CM-D = + or -3 from standard role CM

- Philosophy (VR 6, R 8, B 10, F 12 and VF 14) = + or -2 at each philosophy

- Team setting : More expressive or more disciplined = + or - 5 from average CF

For one, I simply make a difference between specialist roles. Some are creative, some are restrictive. I don't mind having a BWM-D (CF = 5) or a poacher (CF = 13) in a fluid set-up since my aim is to have some guys doing either the dirty work (A Makelele behind Galacticos) or simply be more focused on scoring. It's all about CF constrast in your team and how you spread it.

In a very rigid, I don't mind having 2-3 creative specialist role. In my 4222 box, I have a Regista-S, a CWB-A and a Treq-A up top, these players are my creative hubs. But I'd avoid restrictive specialist role since their lesser CF will be diluted in a average less CF.

My logic has always been more like this actually

Very Rigid : 2-3 creative specialist

Rigid : 1-2 creative specialist

Balanced : Whatever but same same number of each category of specialist (BWM-D + AP-S is fine)

Fluid : 1-2 restrictive specialist

Very Fluid : 2-3 restrictive specialists

Creative specialist are in my opinion

- Trequartista

- Enganche

- Regista

- Deep-Lying and Advanced Playmaker

In either category (because of non specialist instructions (universalism) and higher CF)

- Box to Box

- Complete forward

- CWB-A

Restrictive specialist

- Defensive winger

- Defensive forward

- Poacher

- BWM

- Anchorman

- Limited FB

- Limited CB

What struck me about those screenshots in the OP is that they beautifully illustrate for me just how abstract and archaic these concepts of Mentality and Creative Freedom in isolation are.

My tactical approach is far less granular than some seem to take so I embrace the more holistic conceptual era that the Tactics Creator introduced, and that the FM14 interface now accelerates.

The ambiguity and confusion that things like Creative Freedom and Mentality create are lessened if you are just prepared to forget what you knew (or didn't), and just roll with the new system.

What struck me about those screenshots in the OP is that they beautifully illustrate for me just how abstract and archaic these concepts of Mentality and Creative Freedom in isolation are.

My tactical approach is far less granular than some seem to take so I embrace the more holistic conceptual era that the Tactics Creator introduced, and that the FM14 interface now accelerates.

The ambiguity and confusion that things like Creative Freedom and Mentality create are lessened if you are just prepared to forget what you knew (or didn't), and just roll with the new system.

I agree that the numbers are very unhelpful since they're contingent on so many other factors and "Mentality 8" is totally ambiguous unless you have extensive experience with the game, but while they're abstract and archaic in themselves, they are trying to represent something (namely, the individual's general tactical orientation within the broader system) that isn't well expressed by either team fluidity/mentality or role. So while I completely agree with the decision to get away from a numeric representation, I do think individual mentality itself should be brought into the future with a more literal, holistic representation to avoid confusion over what fluidity/mentality actually do.

As I see it, there's a bit of a dialectic going on here. In the beginning, there were only sliders/individual settings that were too isolated and weirdly specific to be genuinely intelligible in a real world sense, and this required the TC to introduce broad, theoretical concepts to put the sliders into a comprehensible framework that made sense of their interactions. The sliders were then removed to emphasize the new primacy of the TC, but this leaves only the theoretical framework itself and not the specific examples that it is attempting to make intelligible which, in turn, renders the TC too isolated and weirdly general to be clearly intelligible in a real world sense. What's needed, rather, is for the individual settings to be adapted and better expressed in the more literal, realistic terms of the TC. In other words, I think a lot of the explanatory potential of the TC is being passed up by removing the very specifics it was trying to explain in the first place, and while sliders/numerical settings should be scrapped, they should be replaced with the more literal ideas that the TC was originally supposed to help make clear.

Make no mistake, I absolutely love the new TC and FM 14 as a whole. The only reason I did begin this thread was confusement about what philosophies actually do. A manager should at least have an idea about what he's trying to achieve. The numbers is is something I don't care about. Buut the general idea should be made obvious. The sliders should come back for now, but as 'view only'. That way you don't have to micromanage anything, yet you get an idea what you're asking your team to do.

Make no mistake, I absolutely love the new TC and FM 14 as a whole. The only reason I did begin this thread was confusement about what philosophies actually do. A manager should at least have an idea about what he's trying to achieve. The numbers is is something I don't care about. Buut the general idea should be made obvious. The sliders should come back for now, but as 'view only'. That way you don't have to micromanage anything, yet you get an idea what you're asking your team to do.

If the sliders came back for now as view only then you'd get people wanting the next step after a while, the ability to change them again and we are back at square one. THG's idea is much better imo

Maybe it is, When I made my reply i hadn't read his post. Probably since I' m posting this with my smartphone at a very slow pace.. I just want some feedback, I don't really care how its implemented.

A lot of the confusion with the removal of sliders relates to the Player Instruction interface, which is unnecessarily poor in its current guise.

It makes no sense to remove reference points by just greying out instructions.

When the interface is updated to differentiate the greys into "Locked In" and "Locked Out" categories, I think that many of THOGs points will be addressed.

Personally, I'm not sure that any representation of Creative Freedom or Mentality is required, but again, that's probably because I'm not too fastidious about knowing every component of a game that I just want to play. If Creative Freedom and Mentality are linked to Fluidity in a way which I can understand and appreciate, that works for me.

I feel this is a pretty good step up from the laymans point of view and details it well :

http://www.guidetofootballmanager.com/tactics/team-instructions/fluidity#fluid-playing-styles

http://www.guidetofootballmanager.com/tactics/team-instructions/fluidity#rigid-playing-styles

Now Steve, I put you to the test since you have been provided some great information here by a couple of the most brilliant FM minds there are , (Cleon and NakS) and take all this advice and create a test save.

Create a fluid , and rigid , and WATCH the way they play .... from all this information provided to you ... you should be able to start picking up the subtle differences and notice the changes you make and its effects on your players ...

I think I understand the concepts of the philosophies quite well. I basicly started rhis thread because I've found that there is a lot of confusion about the actual meaning of the different styles. So I'm noy sure what you mean by your remark. I already watch most games in full.

Can I open a new front here, namely exploring the relationship between the philosophies and level of league?

What I mean is this - I think a lot of people tend to assume it is common sense that a Premier League team is well-suited to a fluid philosophy because the players will have high mental/technical attributes, whereas a Skrill non-league team of limited cloggers should use a rigid philosophy. However, this appears to be contradicted by the implications of wwfan's 12-step guide. Common sense again would seem to expect that in a Premier League team there would be more specialists and in a non-league team generalists - after all, you don't hear much talk of Registas and Engaches amongst the part-timers.

That would therefore suggest that according to wwfan, a non-league team would employ a fluid philosophy and a Premier League team a rigid philosophy. I put that to the test with my first FM14 save with my Skrill North side. They seemed to be struggling with a fluid philosophy and I've gradually down-scaled it until now they are rigid and are playing much better. To be fair, this could be more to do with slowly getting more fluid (different meaning!) in their formation and gelling.

So I don't have the answer and I'm throwing it out for consideration: with a lower league club with generalist players, which philosophy is best, and why?

Any system that you use a generalist approach imo is best suited to being fluid because that's what the whole philosophy is about and makes everyone do a little bit of everything.

You shouldn't base philosophy on what level you are playing but rather you should choose it based on what you are trying to create and the manner in which you want the players to behave. All philosophies work at any level, it's down to how you set up the roles/duties that determines which would suit you best.

I think sometimes people confuse a fluid philosophy with free flowing football and a rigid set up with a team of battlers. Neither is true and you can be rigid and play free flowing and be fluid and be an aggressive dirty team.

Absolutely so. I never consider league level when choosing any setting, only the relative strengths and weaknesses my team possess. Even in the Faroe islands with my parttime balkikickers I can play beautiful ball posqession style football.

Any system that you use a generalist approach imo is best suited to being fluid because that's what the whole philosophy is about and makes everyone do a little bit of everything.

You shouldn't base philosophy on what level you are playing but rather you should choose it based on what you are trying to create and the manner in which you want the players to behave. All philosophies work at any level, it's down to how you set up the roles/duties that determines which would suit you best.

I think sometimes people confuse a fluid philosophy with free flowing football and a rigid set up with a team of battlers. Neither is true and you can be rigid and play free flowing and be fluid and be an aggressive dirty team.

Agreed.

I have always favoured a rigid strategy in the past. Purely because I liked the structure of the mentalities. I also always use an attacking mentality so that my most defensive players still have a more aggressive approach when it comes to attacking. For me the actually 'image' of your team is determined by other factors such as passing, closing down, tackling etc and isn't really influenced by philosophy.

In fact right now I am experimenting with a rigid 4-4-2 with an attacking mentality. However, my playing style is influenced by how I have set my defensive line and passing style. I have instructed them to drop deeper, pass into space and use more direct passing. The football I am seeing is very much like Man Utd in the early 00's and isn't an aggressive dirty style at all.

A lot of the confusion with the removal of sliders relates to the Player Instruction interface, which is unnecessarily poor in its current guise.

It makes no sense to remove reference points by just greying out instructions.

When the interface is updated to differentiate the greys into "Locked In" and "Locked Out" categories, I think that many of THOGs points will be addressed.

Personally, I'm not sure that any representation of Creative Freedom or Mentality is required, but again, that's probably because I'm not too fastidious about knowing every component of a game that I just want to play. If Creative Freedom and Mentality are linked to Fluidity in a way which I can understand and appreciate, that works for me.

I think it's important to separate what individual mentality is supposed to represent in actual football and all the luggage/debate it's created as a game mechanic in FM. There are roles that generally define how players operate, but ultimately, individual mentality is the most important factor in determining how a player interprets his role. Now, it is vaguely implicit via fluidity/team mentality, but it really should be made clear. And not simply within the terms of making the game more accessible but because, IRL, fluidity is the aggregate of a system of less theoretical individual instructions.

For example, let's say you're trailing at the half and have a ball-winning midfielder. You tell the team "Chin up boys, let's go out there, take the game by the throat and grab that equalizer" (in FM terms, switch to Attack team mentality), but now, you may also want to alter your team's structure to meet the team objective. Do you say, "Keep it nice & fluid, lads?" No, you explain to players individually how you want them serving the team objective, so in the case of our ball-winning midfielder, you would say maybe "Don't worry about getting booked, just get the ball back and thread it forward as quick as you can" or "Don't be too reckless, get the ball back but don't give away a free kick, and unless we've got a man wide open, play it square to Pirlo and let him pick out the right pass."

Now, the fluidity settings organize these individual instructions very well and take out a horrendous amount of guesswork/trial & error for new players, but it's not altogether clear what fluidity really means unless you have some representation of those individual instructions as a point of reference.

Can I open a new front here, namely exploring the relationship between the philosophies and level of league?

What I mean is this - I think a lot of people tend to assume it is common sense that a Premier League team is well-suited to a fluid philosophy because the players will have high mental/technical attributes, whereas a Skrill non-league team of limited cloggers should use a rigid philosophy. However, this appears to be contradicted by the implications of wwfan's 12-step guide. Common sense again would seem to expect that in a Premier League team there would be more specialists and in a non-league team generalists - after all, you don't hear much talk of Registas and Engaches amongst the part-timers.

That would therefore suggest that according to wwfan, a non-league team would employ a fluid philosophy and a Premier League team a rigid philosophy. I put that to the test with my first FM14 save with my Skrill North side. They seemed to be struggling with a fluid philosophy and I've gradually down-scaled it until now they are rigid and are playing much better. To be fair, this could be more to do with slowly getting more fluid (different meaning!) in their formation and gelling.

So I don't have the answer and I'm throwing it out for consideration: with a lower league club with generalist players, which philosophy is best, and why?

I think the TC, to some extent, does lead players to believe that specific fluidity settings correspond to specific mentality settings (and thus, the skill level of your team), and my opinion is that fluidity is completely independent of both general skill level and competitor-relative skill level. Yes, we typically don't use phrases like regista when discussing amateur players because that would be incredibly pretentious, but I would say they do exist at literally every level. I was watching my brother coach his U10 side the other week, and he had an exceptionally graceful, skilled player in the middle that was drifting around and serving as the main focal point in transition play. In U10 terms, he is "that really talented and coordinated kid in midfield who everyone keeps passing the ball to" which naturally prompted the other coach to yell "Close down #10, no one else is going to pass the ball," but is that not, essentially, a regista in a rigid system? Alternately, what is U6 football if not the purest expression of fluidity?

But if this i true, then shouldn´t the Specialist roles have LESS creativity? For example, Advanced Playmaker in a AML or AMR position has cut inside ticked and thats what we "want" him to do by giving the player this Specialist role. But if we use Rigid/attacking then we will increase his Creativity meening we are giving him more freedom to do what ever he wants to = Perhaps he will NOT cut inside because of this.....

Sorry for my english.

Edit:

If i want a player to act like in a Special role then why should i give him more Creativity? To me it should be the opposite.

In U10 terms, he is "that really talented and coordinated kid in midfield who everyone keeps passing the ball to" which naturally prompted the other coach to yell "Close down #10, no one else is going to pass the ball," but is that not, essentially, a regista in a rigid system?

Funnily enough I was talking about a similar thing last week with the Guam manager Gary J. White. We were talking about how people are quick to try and label everything these days and pin point everything. He was explaining that he views players as just that, a player and when translating his instructions to them he does it exactly how you described at the u10 level. He gives players instructions that influence their behaviour and the way they'll act during the game pretty much how you explained in the earlier parts of the same post.

I think we all agree though that the game needs to do a lot more than it currently does to translate how things work and try and re-balance some of the ambiguity they've caused over the years. It's no use improving the game if they don't also update the way they translate things and get it across so the user can identify and have some sort of idea how something works.